In Texas, it is not uncommon for judges to issue gag orders in high-profile criminal cases. But what exactly is a gag order and why are they necessary? In this article, we will discuss gag orders in Texas, their purpose, and the consequences of violating one.

What is a gag order?

A gag order is a court order that prohibits the parties in a criminal case from publicly discussing the details with the news media or the public. That means those associated with the case, including attorneys, witnesses, and the defendant, cannot make extrajudicial, out-of-court public statements about the case until the trial is over.

What’s the purpose of a gag order?

The purpose of a gag order is to prevent information about the case from becoming tainted or biased before it reaches the jury. If potential jurors are exposed to statements made by those involved in the case, it could impact their ability to render a fair and impartial verdict. In addition, gag orders help ensure that both the prosecution and defense have a level playing field during trial.

Who can request gag orders in Texas?

Gag orders in Texas can be requested by the prosecution or defense, but judges can also decide to issue one on their own. In most cases, the decision will be made based on how high-profile the case is and whether there is a risk that public statements could influence the jury.

How does a judge determine whether a gag order is appropriate?

To justify a gag order, the court must make specific judicial findings, consider less drastic alternatives, and narrowly tailor the order to address the identified harm. For example, in a recent high profile case in Tarrant County involving a police officer accused of fatally shooting a woman inside her home, the gag order contained the following findings:

“The court finds that out-of-court statements relating to the investigation and pretrial matters of this cause pose a serious and imminent threat to the Defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial, the ability of the Court to maintain a fair and impartial jury, and to the fair administration of justice. The court further finds that other less restrictive means will not adequately protect the Defendant’s right to a fair trial and the interest in the State and the Defendant in a fair and impartial jury.”

Who does a gag order in Texas prohibit from talking?

The gag order can apply to anyone who is participating in the case, including but not limited to:

• the defendant
• witnesses
• attorneys (the prosecutors and defense attorneys)
• law enforcement
• court personnel
• jurors

Let’s look at the same high-profile case in Tarrant County referenced above. A gag order was issued ahead of the trial of Aaron Dean, a former police officer accused of killing Atatiana Jefferson inside her home. The judge issued a gag order that prohibited “any attorney participating in, or any attorney associated with the trial of this cause, their office associates, assistants, staff members, investigators and employees under their supervision, as well as the defendant and any personnel of the Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney’s Office” from making an extrajudicial statement.

Click here to read the gag order in its entirety.

Does a gag order prohibit parties from speaking to the media at all? 

A gag order shouldn’t be overreaching and prohibit parties from speaking to the media entirely. An attorney or other person subject to the order would not be prohibited from reciting, without comment, the information contained in public records, such as the time or date of a hearing, or the general nature of the proceedings.

What are the consequences of violating gag orders in Texas?

If someone violates a gag order in Texas, they could be held in contempt of court. In Texas, contempt of court is punishable by up to six months in the county jail and a maximum $500 fine.

When is a gag order lifted?

The judge presiding over the high-profile case can lift the gag order at any time. However, once the trial has concluded, the parties will be free to discuss the case.

Questions about gag orders in Texas?

We hope you found this information about gag orders in Texas helpful. Our team has handled numerous high-profile cases over the years, first as prosecutors and now as highly-regarded defense attorneys. If you have questions or comments about gag orders in Texas, feel free to leave a reply below. If you or a loved one has been arrested or accused of a crime in North Texas, call 817-203-2220 for a free consultation with an experienced attorney.

You may have heard about someone getting “doxed” or someone “doxing” a person. But what does that mean, and most importantly, is it illegal in Texas? Doxing, also spelled “doxxing,” is a form of cyberbullying that is surging in popularity across the state and country. In this blog post, we are going to explain what it is, what crimes are related to the practice of doxing, and what to do if you are accused of doxing in Texas.

What is Doxing?

Doxing, short for “dropping dox,” is a term that originates from the abbreviated form of documents or “dox.”  It refers to the act of spreading or posting private information about individuals or organizations to the public, mostly through the Internet. Doxing is committed without the victim’s knowledge or consent, and it is often done to harass or get revenge. The practice of doxing has gained popularity and notoriety over the years, and while the practice of doxing is not explicitly illegal in Texas (yet), there are various crimes that can stem from the act of doxing.

What are some Examples of Doxxing?

While doxing ranges in severity, it basically entails releasing private or personal information to the public in an attempt to harass, extort, or shame. Examples include:

• Releasing personal photos of an individual
• Posting an individual’s phone number or address on the Internet
• Releasing information about an individual’s family, work or other private information
• Encouraging others to use released information to harass an individual

You may remember many years ago when creepy distorted videos of individuals wearing Guy Fawkes masks were being circulated on social media. These individuals are a part of the hactivist group, “Anonymous,” which is a collective group of online hackers who release private information or “dox” individuals or groups for political purposes, such as KKK members and law enforcement members.

More recently, the group reemerged to target the Minneapolis police department’s website in protest for the death of George Floyd. While this is an extreme example of doxing, other forms can be as simple as when news anchor Lou Dobbs tweeted the address and phone number of Jessica Leeds, a 74-year-old woman who told the New York Times Donald Trump groped her three decades ago.

Is Doxing Illegal in Texas?

Because doxing is a relatively new phenomenon that is constantly evolving, there is currently no specific law that makes doxing in Texas illegal. However, various charges can stem from doxing including harassment, cyberbullying, stalking, and swatting.

What Charges Can Stem from Doxing in Texas?

Although there is not a specific charge for doxing in Texas, there are a multitude of charges that can be filed against someone engaged in doxing. Some include:

• Harassment: Harassment is a common charge that results from doxing. In the state of Texas, harassment is described in Penal Code Section 42.07 as an intent to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass” another person. If the intent of the alleged perpetrator includes any of the above when doxing, they could be charged with harassment.  Harassment is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and $2,000 in fines. However it can be elevated to a Class A if the defendant has a previous conviction for harassment.
• Cyberbullying: Cyberbullying takes place when someone is bullied, harassed, or threatened over the Internet or on social media. This crime typically applies to teenagers and young adults. Cyberbullying can stem from doxing if any personal information of the alleged victim is shared without consent in order to harass them or bully them. Although punishments typically are handled by schools, if the harassment is severe enough, criminal charges can be filed under the harassment statute.
• Stalking: Stalking is a crime defined by Section 42.072 of the Texas Penal code. It occurs when a  person on more than one occasion, engages in actions which are directed at one specific person or a person’s family or property, which is done with the intent to cause fear of death or serious bodily injury in the person being threatened. Essentially, the defendant must make repeated actions that cause fear of harm toward a specific person or their family – this can be done in person and online. Stalking in the state of Texas is considered a third-degree felony which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine. People with a previous criminal record could have their charge elevated to a second-degree felony, punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.
• Swatting: Swatting involves calling 911 and reporting a fake emergency in order for police to respond to a specific address, usually to prank or harass an individual. A person is guilty of swatting under Texas Penal Code Section 42.061 if they call 911 when there is not an emergency. Swatting is classified as a Class B misdemeanor and can involve up to 180 days in jail and $2,000 in fines.
• Targeting a Police Officer: After the tragic killing of five police officers in Dallas in 2016, Texas passed a law making threats and violence towards law enforcement officers hate crimes – in person or online. Under HB 2908, the punishment for threatening a police officer was elevated from a misdemeanor to a state jail felony, punishable by up to two years in jail. Punishments can be increased even more if prosecutors can prove the offender specifically targeted a police officer because of their occupation.

What Federal Charges Could Stem from Doxing?

• Stalking: The federal government also has an anti-stalking law, which is found under 18 USC 2261A. While similar to Texas’ stalking law, the main difference is that the alleged offender would violate federal law if they traveled across state lines while stalking, or if the offender used a telephone, the Internet, or the US Postal Service to stalk.So, if an individual only stalked by showing up to a house multiple times in Texas, they would not violate the federal stalking law. However, if any form of communication to the alleged victim took place over the phone, internet, or mail, or if the victim lived in a different state, the alleged offender could be guilty under federal law. A person convicted of stalking under federal law could face up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
• Protecting Individuals Performing Certain Official Duties: 18 USC 119 is perhaps the most explicit in making doxing illegal, however, it only applies to “covered” persons. Under this law, it is illegal to knowingly make restricted personal information about a covered person or their family available with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or incite violence toward that individual.A covered person is any officer or employee of the United States government, including soldiers. It also applies to those working with such employees in the performance of their duties, any member of the US Court System, or any informant or witness in a federal criminal investigation. The punishment for violating this law is up to 5 years in prison and potential fines.
• Interstate Communications Statute: The Interstate Communications Statue, found under 18 U.S. Code 875, contains laws preventing the extortion of individuals through electronic communication forms. While it contains four sections, the one most relevant to doxing is found in section D, which states the illegality of making any threat to injure the property or reputation of another individual over some electronic communication medium, with the intent to extort a certain individual.In simpler terms, this statute makes it illegal to attempt to extort someone by threatening to release information about them that could damage their reputation. The punishment for violating the Interstate Communications Statute is up to two years in prison and fines.

What are Some Examples of Individuals Who have been Arrested for Doxing?

• Two men in New York were arrested in September of 2019 for releasing the home addresses and social security numbers of more than 36 law enforcement officers. They were charged with related crimes such as harassment and stalking.
• A U.S. House of Representatives intern was arrested in October of 2018 for releasing the home addresses and phone numbers of several Republican lawmakers in an attempt to intimidate them during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings.
• A man from New York was arrested for doxing and swatting in July of 2016 for releasing the information of more than 50 individuals and making false bomb threats to a university in Arizona. He was charged federally and was sentenced to 2 years in federal prison.

Has Legislation Been Proposed to Make Doxing in Texas a Specific Crime?

Yes, in recent years, bills have been proposed that would make doxing in Texas a crime and carry specific punishments. Although they gained traction, none have been passed by the Texas legislature.

Accused of a Doxing-Related Crime in Texas? Contact Us.

If you or a loved one is facing charges related to doxing, such as harassment or stalking, it is crucial that you get legal representation immediately. Our team of defense attorneys at Varghese Summersett have decades of experience and a proven record of exceptional results  Call 817-203-2220 today for a free consultation with a doxing lawyer.

On March 11, 2020, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas handed down Holder v. State, an opinion stemming from a capital murder case that could have far-reaching consequences regarding the way investigators obtain cell site location information in the future. Specifically, the high court held that obtaining 23 days of cellphone location tracking dates without a warrant violated the Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution and that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell site location.

What is Cell Site Location Information?

Cellphones are the most commonly used electronic device by individuals in the United States, providing an intimate window into a person’s life. An estimated 96 percent of Americans own cell phones, allowing friends, family, and others to track an individual’s location through Find my Friends, Snapchat, A-GPS Tracker, and other free phone applications. Yet, people fail to realize that their cellphone providers have access, and regularly store, their cell site location information.

Cell site location information refers to the time-stamped information cell phones transmit to nearby cell towers every time a phone call is made, a text message is sent, or a web browser is opened. Police officers, during ongoing criminal investigations, may request an individual’s cell site location information. This allows authorities to triangulate the general location of a suspect.

What’s the Background in Holder v State?

On November 11, 2012, police found the body of Billy Tanner in his east Plano home. Tanner had been beaten and stabbed. It also appeared that the killer had also attempted to burn down Tanner’s house.

Investigators quickly honed in on Christopher James Holder as the suspect. Holder had been romantically involved with Tanner’s step-daughter, Casey James, and the couple and her young children had lived together in Tanner’s house. In late October 2012, Tanner asked Holder to move out at the request of his stepdaughter because they were having relationship problems.

The following month, James told Holder saying she believed Tanner had inappropriately touched one of her daughters. CPS and police investigated but found no evidence that inappropriate activity had occurred between Tanner and his step-granddaughter.

The next time James spoke to Holder she told him she was going out of town for the weekend. When she returned home two days later on Nov. 11, James knew something was wrong. Tanner’s truck was missing, the garage door-opener didn’t work, and there was a horrible smell in the house. Police responded to the scene and found Tanner dead, a victim of a blunt force trauma to the head and 20 stab wounds. It also appeared that

On Nov. 12,  the police interviewed Holder,  who claimed he had been out of town the last few days — an alibi that would later be disproved by Holder’s cell site location information. That same day, police got a court order requiring Holder’s cellphone provider, ATT, to disclose Holder’s call log and cell site location information records between Oct. 20, 2012 and Nov. 12, 2012. It was a total of 23 days’ worth of data.

Holder’s cell site location information showed that on November 10 between 3:28 p.m. and 4:16 p.m., he was near Tanner’s home. The death investigation revealed that Tanner’s death mostly likely occurred during that time period. The cell site location information further revealed that Holder was near Tanner’s home, again, on November 11 at 12:41 a.m. and that he was suspiciously near where Tanner’s truck was located at roughly 2:11 a.m.

Confronted with the information, Holder changed his story, saying that he remembered being near Tanner’s house but it was only to buy drugs.

Holder was subsequently arrested and later charged with capital murder in connection with Holder’s death.

Several months later, a jail inmate told detectives that that on Nov. 10, 2012, Holder called him asking for drugs and needed help with something. They ended up at a house where a man was dead to clean up the crime scene. The inmate told police that the dead man had “molested a little girl.”

During his trial in the summer of 2015, Holder went on trial for capital murder in connection with Tanner’s death. Tanner filed a motion to suppress the cell data, claiming he had a protected privacy interest in his cell site location information. The trial court denied the motion and Holder was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Holder appealed. In Holder v State, the question for the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas was whether the cell site location information should have been suppressed?

What About Privacy Rights?

 As citizens of the United States we have a reasonable expectation of privacy so long as society considers that expectation of privacy objectively reasonable. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of the people, “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const. amend. IV.

Furthermore, the Texas Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be, “secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all unreasonable seizures or searches.” TEX. CONST. art. I, § 9. Privacy rights are neither absolute nor explicitly listed. Caselaw clarified scenarios in which individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ultimately, the court in Holder focused on the privacy rights provided in the Texas Constitution, Article 1, S 9, when discussing how to resolve this case.

How did the Court in Holder Handle Privacy Right’s?

The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that Holder had a right to privacy when it came to his cell site location information. Accordingly, the data which was used to refute Holder’s alibi should have been suppressed. Arrival at this holding required an extensive review of past cases with similar issues and a thorough discussion of the nature of cell site location information records.

• Katz v. United States: Electronically listening to and recording an individual’s phone call, with electronic wiretaps, violates that individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy. This was a monumental Supreme Court decision because it was the first time the concept of “reasonable expectation of privacy” was thoroughly considered.  Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
• United States v. Knotts: Attaching a surveillance device in order to reveal information regarding public movement, that could also be obtained through ordinary visual surveillance, is not an unreasonable search. A person travelling on public roads has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. If, however, the beeper is used in a private place to track an individual’s location there could be an argument that privacy rights have been violated. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).
• United States v. Jones: The government’s installation of a GPS device on an individual’s vehicle and the use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, twenty-four hours a day for 28 days, violated his Fourth Amendment rights to privacy. Here, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment violation happened when officers attached the GPS device to the vehicle which was Jones’s private property. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012).
• Carpenter v. United States (2018): Warrants are required when gathering cell phone tracking information. Cell phones are a vital part of human autonomy which means tracking the location of a cellphone is almost perfect surveillance. The Court went as far as to compare a cellphone to an ankle monitor in terms of location surveillance capability. Additionally, the Court reasoned that the longer GPS monitoring takes place, the higher the probability an individuals’ privacy rights have been violated, “regardless of whether those movements were disclosed to the public at large.” Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2215 (2018).

Holder v State differs from the cases above because it illustrates privacy concerns that arise from tracking someone through their cell site location information. Precedent calls for the application of the third-party doctrine to resolve the issue present in Holder. The third-party doctrine states that people who voluntarily give information to third parties –banks, phone companies, internet providers, and e-mail servers – have no reasonable expectation of privacy to that information. Accordingly, the government does not need a warrant to access these personal records. Following this reasoning, the data police officers collected in Holder should not have been suppressed – the trial court’s decision was correct. Ultimately, however, the Court chose not to apply the third-party doctrine. The Court instead adopted the ruling in Carpenter: the third-party doctrine will no longer be applicable to cell site location information under Article 1, § 9 of the Texas Constitution. Holder v. State, 595 S.W.3d 691, 701 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020). Accordingly, the cell site location information collected in Holder should have been suppressed because the defendant had a protected privacy interest in that data.

What the Effect of Holder v. State?

In the years to come, expect to see the law change as technology continues to advance. The Constitution of the United States of America and the Texas Constitution guarantee the people a right to privacy, but fail to explicitly state what privacy rights the people have. The Courts in Carpenter and Holder reasoned that as technology advances, it becomes more difficult to determine when privacy rights have been violated. If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges where privacy rights may have been violated it is important to contact an experienced criminal defense attorney.

If your spouse has been accused of a crime in Texas, can you refuse to testify at their trial? In most cases, the answer is yes – but there are some exceptions. Here’s what you need to know about spousal immunity in Texas.

What is spousal immunity in Texas?

Spousal immunity is a long-standing rule that says an individual cannot be forced to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. The rule, which is defined in 504(b) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, was implemented to preserve the integrity and sanctity of marriage.

What does Texas law say about spouses testifying against each other?

In Texas, two rules protect couples from possibly incriminating each other: Confidential Communication Privilege and Privilege Not to Testify in a Criminal Case.

Together these rules are referred to as “Spousal Privileges” or “Husband-Wife Privileges” and are defined in Rule 504 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. We will break down each rule below.

Privilege of a Spouse Not to Testify for the State in a Criminal Case

Let’s say your husband or wife was accused of a serious crime and the prosecution wanted to call you to the stand and question you about his or her behavior or verify their whereabouts on the night in question. During questioning, you would be under oath, which means you would be required by law to tell the truth and could be charged with perjury if you did not.

Clearly, this scenario creates a unique conflict of interest, which is why spousal immunity exists in Texas. If you invoke your spousal immunity privilege not to testify –  which is sometimes referred to as testimonial privilege –  the state can’t force you to testify against your spouse in criminal proceedings.

A couple of things are worth noting. This only keeps the State from being able to call you against your will if you are the spouse of the accused. The defense could call you. Second, the privilege is yours, not the accused. The accused could not assert the privilege for your or keep you from testifying if you wanted to.

Can I voluntarily testify for the state in my spouse’s trial?

Yes, it’s important to understand that it is the defendant’s spouse who holds the spousal immunity privilege in Texas, meaning it is their decision whether or not to invoke it. If a spouse wants to voluntarily testify for the state, he or she can do so, even if the defendant objects.

What if my spouse (the defendant) wants me to testify for the defense?

Spousal immunity does not prohibit the defendant from calling his or her spouse as a witness. If the defendant wants to call their spouse to the stand, then they will be compelled to testify.

What are the exceptions to this privilege in Texas?

While spousal immunity in Texas is a broad rule, there are some exceptions to it. Spousal immunity doesn’t apply:

• if the defendant’s spouse is also their victim. For example, if you are a victim of domestic violence at the hands of your husband, you will be required to testify. Spousal immunity does not apply.
• if the couple wasn’t married yet. For example, if you are asked to testify about matters that occurred before the marriage, you can’t invoke spousal immunity. You will be required to testify.

Marital Confidential Communications Privilege

The marital communication privilege is a rule that protects private conversations between spouses from being used as evidence in a criminal trial. This rule is defined in Rule 504(a) of the Texas Rules of Evidence.

What is the marital confidential communications privilege in Texas?

The privilege applies to any conversation that took place between a husband and wife, as long as the couple was married when the conversation occurred and they were not legally separated at the time. The conversation must also have been meant to be confidential, meaning that the couple had an expectation of privacy.

Who holds the confidential communications privilege?

Either the spouse (witness or defendant) can assert this privilege. When a married couple has a private conversation, they can’t be asked about it on the stand if either spouse objects. In other words, either spouse may prevent the other from disclosing their communications.

What are the exceptions to marital confidential communication privilege?

There are some exceptions to the marital confidential communications privilege. You cannot refuse questioning if:

• the communication aided in the commission of a crime. For example, if you and your husband discussed committing a crime, you can be compelled to testify.
• the alleged conduct is a crime against the spouse, a minor child, or any member of the household or in a prosecution for bigamy.

Spouse Accused of a Crime? Speak to a Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney

If your spouse has been accused of a crime, it’s important to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney. A seasoned lawyer can help you understand your rights and options, and can ensure that your spouse’s rights are protected throughout the legal process.

At Varghese Summersett, our Fort Worth criminal defense attorneys have decades of experience handling all types of criminal cases, including those involving spousal immunity and marital confidential communications. We understand the stress and anxiety you are feeling, and we will work tirelessly to help you get through this difficult time.

Two North Texas men are among those who have been charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with last year’s assault on the U.S. Capitol. Until recently, many people had never even heard of sedition charges. In this article, we will explain the offense and how the government is using this obscure law to prosecute a far-right militia group for their alleged involvement in the invasion of the U.S. Capitol.

What is seditious conspiracy?

Seditious conspiracy is a federal offense defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2384. It occurs when two or more people conspire to “overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force” the U.S. government, or to levy war against it, or to oppose by force and try to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law.

What is the punishment for seditious conspiracy?

Seditious conspiracy is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison.

How many people have been charged with seditious conspiracy in the breach of the U.S. Capitol?

Eleven members of the so-called “Oath Keepers” have been charged with seditious conspiracy related to the breach of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. Two of the men are from North Texas, including the leader of the group who lives in Granbury. The rest of the defendants are from various parts of the country, including Virginia, Florida, Georgia, and Ohio. The Oath Keepers have been described by local Texas media as a “revolution-minded, conspiracy-bent militia group.”

What are the allegations?

The federal indictment alleges that, following the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election, the Oath Keepers began conspiring how to overturn the election results and prepared for a siege by purchasing weapons and setting up battle plans.The FBI obtained encrypted communications among the Oath Keepers, including a message on Nov. 5 by the leader that read: “We aren’t getting through this without a civil war. Too late for that. Prepare your mind, body, spirit.” He also allegedly wrote in one text “to scare the s—out of” Congress. 

On Jan. 6, the indictment alleges, they entered the Capitol building with the large crowds of rioters who stormed past police barriers, smashed windows and rammed doors, injuring dozens of officers and sending lawmakers scrambling.

The indictment against the leader alleges the Oath Keepers formed two teams, or “stacks,” that entered the Capitol. The first stack split up inside the building to go after the House and Senate. The second stack confronted officers inside the Capitol Rotunda, the indictment said. Outside Washington, the indictment alleges, the Oath Keepers had stationed two “quick reaction forces” that had guns “in support of their plot to stop the lawful transfer of power.” Interestingly, the leader did not enter the Capitol that day but is accused of putting the violent plan into motion.

How often is seditious conspiracy charged? 

Seditious conspiracy charges are rare and hard to prove. According to news reports, the last time prosecutors brought sedition charges was in 2010 against members of the “Hutaree” – a small far-right Christian militia group in Michigan. The group was allegedly plotting to incite an uprising against the government. However, a judge dismissed the charges after finding there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy.

What happens next in the case?

On March 2, one of the 11 defendants pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, admitting he tried to keep President Biden from taking office and agreed to cooperate with the government. That means he will likely testify against his co-defendants, including the leader of the group who is expected to go on trial later this year. No doubt, the country will be watching.

Facing sedition charges? Contact us.

If you have been accused of sedition in North Texas or are facing charges stemming from the Capitol riot, it’s imperative that you contact an experienced federal defense attorney. Rest assured, the government is going to bring all of their resources to bear on this case. Our team has extensive experience defending federal criminal charges. Call 817-203-2220 for a free consultation.